What's the difference between the early and newer Cotic Soul frames? I'm looking to buy one and need to be sure what I'm getting.
Thanks
Bike Forum
[closed]
Cotic soul experts to the forum please
-
Posted 1 year ago #
-
Newer one has neater rear dropouts and is warrantied to 140mm travel forks whereas old was 130mm. Newer one conforms to CEN safety regs and is slightly heavier but lots stronger as a consequence. Newer one has a 631 headtube (i think).
Posted 1 year ago # -
I had a 2006 which I think was mk1 which was good for 130mm and a great ride. I then upgraded to a mk2 which is the current frame which turns out to be an even greater ride. But I think you'll find either one is tremendous tbh
Posted 1 year ago # -
as far as the ride and handling is concerned, hardly owt IMHO. Both handle great and are comfy.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I have one of the "early" versions from 2004, but I think subtle changes had already been made over the previous (very first) version.
But, otherwise, they^^^ all have it.
I have a love/hate relationship with mine, but that's way more to do with my lack of off-road skills and the noodly zocchi MX Pros up front. Needs stiffer forks.
Posted 1 year ago # -
It depends on what you want to do with it.
If its an all rounder where going up is as important as going down then it doesn't matter which one as you'll want to run it between 100 and 120mm (or so the general consensus on here appears to be).
If you want a semi hooligan bike and want to run 140mmthen its obviously the new one.
I have found the drop outs on the old one a bit of a pain with an old style rear mech (might be different now I have a shadow on it but haven't tried taking out the rear wheel yet).
However the clincher for me would be that the new one comes in orange.
As somebody else has already pointed out it doesn't really matter as both are great and contain added awesome...
Posted 1 year ago # -
If its an all rounder where going up is as important as going down then it doesn't matter which one as you'll want to run it between 100 and 120mm (or so the general consensus on here appears to be).
If you want a semi hooligan bike and want to run 140mmthen its obviously the new one.
I run 140mm with a bit more sag than usual, best of both worlds
Posted 1 year ago # -
I have an older one and it's great fun. The only gripe I have is with the rear dropouts which are a pain to get the wheel in and out of, but the new ones look so much better. Not sure how big a rear rotor you can get on the new ones, but the old ones are tight with a 140. That said though, if I could afford a new ones I would get one tomorrow.
Posted 1 year ago # -
but the old ones are tight with a 140.
Really, I have 183 hopes on mine... no problems.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I've had both a mk1 and currently have a new one and have also run a 183mm rotor on the back without issue. I forgot about the cable guides and bb width - cables on top on old and underneath top tube on new and my old had a 68mm bb whereas the new one is 73mm. I think the top tube is a slightly different profile on the new one too.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Blimey metalheart and stevede how on earth do you get a 183s in there? Even with a 140 I find I am catching the rotor on the stay when I take the wheel in and out. Just out of interest what wheels/hubs are you using? I am using hope pro 2s.
Posted 1 year ago # -
SD: running pro II's too. As getting the back wheel in and out is a pain (both me and Stevede agree on that also) I rarely take the back wheel out. But there's certain enough clearance to run the (m4) 183mm rotor (although not as much room as on the soda...).
Posted 1 year ago # -
140? huh? can you even get them for non BSO/hybrids? running 160 with acres of space. 180 fits fine, but iirc 203mm was dangerously close?
Also no issues with old style cowled dropout and shadow mech.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Well I really don't understand why I can't get a decent size rotor on the back on mine. When my LBS build it up for me they managed to scratch the non drive side chain stay with the rotor the first time they put the wheel in, and it has been happening ever since no matter how I try and insert the wheel. I was running Mono Minis back and front but have just had to put an M4 on the front to get some stopping power. Weird!!
Posted 1 year ago # -
Weird hub spacing?
Posted 1 year ago # -
SD. i run 180 on the back of mine too, is a mk2 frame, not masses of clearence on the disc mind but enough,
could always put in a washer on the non driveside to give a little more clearence, have had to do so on the front as the rotor bolts i have are quite thick on the bolt head surface!is without doubt the best bike ive had! but then the bike history is pretty pants!!
Posted 1 year ago # -
Thanks all. The phrase 'Not much' seems to sum it up.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Timmo, thanks for the sugestion. I'll give it a try as I really like my Soul and would love to get this issue sorted.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Well I really don't understand why I can't get a decent size rotor on the back on mine
Me neither, I run 180mm on a Mk1 and have never even considered that fouling the chainstay when removing the wheel could be an issue.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Mine is the old version, have a 203 rotor in the back. I know its over kill, but its what i had lying around.
Posted 1 year ago # -
This is getting truly depressing now!!! Might e-mail Cy to see if he can shed any light on this.
Posted 1 year ago # -
You've got a twisted soul.
Posted 1 year ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
